RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Feedback for Congestion Control
draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message-08

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (avtcore WG)
Authors Zaheduzzaman Sarker  , Colin Perkins  , Varun Singh  , Michael Ramalho 
Last updated 2020-09-24 (latest revision 2020-09-02)
Replaces draft-dt-rmcat-feedback-message
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Proposed Standard
Formats plain text xml pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex
Reviews
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Document shepherd Bernard Aboba
Shepherd write-up Show (last changed 2020-07-23)
IESG IESG state IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed
Consensus Boilerplate Yes
Telechat date
Has a DISCUSS. Has enough positions to pass once DISCUSS positions are resolved.
Responsible AD Barry Leiba
Send notices to bernard.aboba@gmail.com, Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
IANA IANA review state IANA OK - Actions Needed
IANA expert review state Expert Reviews OK
IETF RMCAT Working Group                                       Z. Sarker
Internet-Draft                                               Ericsson AB
Intended status: Standards Track                              C. Perkins
Expires: March 6, 2021                             University of Glasgow
                                                                V. Singh
                                                            callstats.io
                                                              M. Ramalho
                                                       September 2, 2020

      RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Feedback for Congestion Control
               draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message-08

Abstract

   This document describes an RTCP feedback message intended to enable
   congestion control for interactive real-time traffic using RTP.  The
   feedback message is designed for use with a sender-based congestion
   control algorithm, in which the receiver of an RTP flow sends RTCP
   feedback packets to the sender containing the information the sender
   needs to perform congestion control.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on March 6, 2021.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents

Sarker, et al.            Expires March 6, 2021                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft     Congestion Control Feedback in RTCP    September 2020

   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  RTCP Feedback for Congestion Control  . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  RTCP Congestion Control Feedback Report . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Feedback Frequency and Overhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  Response to Loss of Feedback Packets  . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  SDP Signalling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   7.  Relation to RFC 6679  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   8.  Design Rationale  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   12. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     12.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     12.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15

1.  Introduction

   For interactive real-time traffic, such as video conferencing flows,
   the typical protocol choice is the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP)
   [RFC3550] running over the User Datagram Protocol (UDP).  RTP does
   not provide any guarantee of Quality of Service (QoS), reliability,
   or timely delivery, and expects the underlying transport protocol to
   do so.  UDP alone certainly does not meet that expectation.  However,
   the RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) [RFC3550] provides a mechanism by
   which the receiver of an RTP flow can periodically send transport and
   media quality metrics to the sender of that RTP flow.  This
   information can be used by the sender to perform congestion control.
   In the absence of standardized messages for this purpose, designers
   of congestion control algorithms have developed proprietary RTCP
   messages that convey only those parameters needed for their
   respective designs.  As a direct result, the different congestion
   control designs are not interoperable.  To enable algorithm evolution
   as well as interoperability across designs (e.g., different rate
Show full document text